Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989/05/04 - Agenda Packet - (2) "CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM DATE: May 8, 1989 ACTION CONRENTS TO: Residential/Institutional 1977 Design Review Committee Larry McNiel Bruce Emerick Otto Krouttl David B1 akesley (A1 ternate ) FROM: Beverly Nissen, Associate Planner SUBJECT: DESIGN REVIEW COMMIITEE MEETING OF MAY 4, 1989 The following is a description of projects which require review and rating by the Design Review Committee. Please review the attached plans, visit the project sites, and write down your conments using the blank space provided under each project on the attached sheets. After the meeting, the consensus of the Conmittee's concerns will be typed up as the formal action/recommendation of the Con~nittee and distributed to the Conmission and Council. As always, feel free to contact the appropriate project manager (noted in parentheses along the left margin), prior to the meeting date, if you have specific questions related to the scheduled projects. Dinner will be provided between 5:00 5:30 p.m., Consent Calendar items will be reviewed between 5:30 p.m. 6:00 p.m., with the first design review item being heard at 6:00 p.m. Please notify our department if you will be unable to attend the meeting, or if you will be late, so that the dinner can be properly ordered and the necessary arrangements made. 6:00- 6:30 (Tom) DESIGN REVIEW FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 13813 - PERRY - The design review of building elevations and detail'ud site plan for a previously approved Tentative Tract Map consisting of 6 single family lots on 1.69 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located on the west side of Hellman Avenue, 900 feet south of 19th Street - APN: 202-041-65. DESIGN REVIEW AGENDA MAY 4, 1989 Page 2 6:30- 7:00 (Tom) ENVIROI(4ENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 13772 NOlllNGHAM LID- A residential subdivision of 13 single family lots on 8.4 acres of land in the Very Low Density Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre) located at the northeast corner of Hillside Road and Amethyst Street - APN: 1061-551-01. BN:mlg Attachments CC: Planning Conmission/City Council ., Residential/Institutional CONSENT CR_ENDAR ITEMS AGENDA May 4, 1989 1. II 13566 - CENllJRY tt!ERICAN (Cindy) Review of porch elevations. Committee Action: The Committee approved the proposed porch elevations as presented. 2. VTT 13823 - DEVCAL (Bruce) Review of m~erials for retaining ~lls. Committee Action: The proposed grey split face concrete block was not approved for use on the retaining walls. The Committee requested that a very light tan split face block be used for the walls and directed staff to review and approve a new sample. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 6:00- 6:30 Tom May 4, 1989 DESIGN REVIEW FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 13813 - PERRY - The design review of building elevations and detailed site plan for a previously approved Tentative Tract Map consisting of 6 single family lots on 1.69 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located on the west side of Hellman Avenue, 900 feet south of 19th Street - APN: 202-041-65. Backgreund: The Conmittee previously reviewed the project on March 2, 1989, and recommended the following revisions: 1. The massing of the units is too repetitive, the applicant should provide greater variation through: a. Vary the side yard sethacks to provide movement in the floor plan/elevation. b. Shed roofs should be provided over front window elements to draw attention away from the garage. The roofs should be in pitch from 4:12 to 6:12. 2. The brick element on the front elevations should be repeated on the chimney. 3. The proposed manufactured granite stone is not acceptable, only natural stone should be used. 4. The rear elevation of lot 4 appears awkward. Either add a post to support the extended building mass, exi~nd the building to the ground, or reduce the overhang. 5. Improve the side elevations by extending materials, i.e., stone, brick, wood trim, wood siding, chimney caps, etc. 6. The shiplap siding on lot 6 should be exl~nded to all elevations. 7. Provide a 15 foot landscape and wall setback along Hellman Avenue (lot 6), the wall should be a decorative block with a decorative cap. 8. Return fencing should be stucco painted, the dominating color of the adjacent unit. The applicant has revised the plans to reflect comnents from both staff and the Committee. Staff has no additional comments. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS TT 13813- PERRY May 4, 1989 Page 2 Oesign Review Coemittee ~ction: Members Present: David Blakesley, Otto Kroutil, Larry McNiel Staff Planner: Tom Grahn The Design Review Conmittee approved the project with the following conditions: 1. The wall design along the corner side yards and rear yards of lots 3 and 6 (which includes the wall design along Hellman Avenue) and the return walls on all units should be a split face block with a decorative cap. 2. The pilasters should be designed so their height is one course of brick higher than the well height. Design of the pilasters should include a decorative cap. 3. On those elevations using a natural stone fascia, a slate stone of a consistent color should be used to transition between the stone fascia and the stucco wall. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 6:30- 7:00 Tom May 4, 1989 ENVIROMIENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 13772 - NOTTINGHAM LTD - A residential subdivision of 13 single family lots on 8.4 acres of land in the Very Low Density Residential District {less than 2 dwelling units per acre) located at the northeast corner of Hillside Road and Amethyst Street - APN: 1061-551-01. Background: The Comnittee previously reviewed the project on January 19, 1989, and recommended the following revisions: 1. The reorientation of lots 5 and 6 from Hillside Road to K1usman Avenue to limit lots fronting on Hillside Road and to avoid lot access across the Community Equestrian Trail. 2. The cul-de-sac east of Amethyst Street should be relecated and/or redesigned to avoid the double frontage of lot 1. This could involve the total redesign of parcels north of Hillside Road. 3. The side property lines of lots 2, 3, and 4 should be orientated perpendicular to ,Hillside Road. Based on these comments and staffs review of the revised plans, the following are still items of concern: 1. The double frontage situation of lot 1. 2. Equestrian access to lot 1. Oesign Review Comtt~ee A~tton: Members Present: David Blakesley, Otto Kroutil, Larry MeNiel Staff Planner: Tom Grahn The Design Review Conmittee reviewed the project but did not rocomnend approval due to the following concerns: 1. the project should be redesigned to avoid the double frontage situation on lot 1. The applicant ms directed to design the project with that portion north of Hillside Avenue taking access via a cul-de-sac off K1usman Avenue. 2. The lot to be created at the southwest corner of Klusman Avenue and the cul-de-sac should be designed to take access from the cul-de- sac. The applicant was directed to revise the project and return to the Committee on a Consent Calendar basis.